Contributions: remove LICENSE.txt
Hello world, the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks. $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l 223 (If these files don't get removed, we might remove them for you, at some point in time.) -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On 08 Oct 2006, at 09:04, Earl Miles wrote:
Dries Buytaert wrote:
$ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l 223
The find for LICENSE.txt only comes up with 72 -- which is still a surprisingly high number, but not as amazing as 223.
No, it really is 223. $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | xargs rm $ cvs -q up modules -AdP $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l 223 Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout? -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On Oct 8, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
No, it really is 223.
$ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | xargs rm ^^^^^^^^^^^ $ cvs -q up modules -AdP $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l ^^^^^^^^^^^ 223
Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout?
the subject (and content of this thread) is talking about "LICENSE.txt". your find commands keep talking about INSTALL.txt, the install instructions. hence the different numbers. ;) contrib authors: pay attention to the subject, not the body -- we want those INSTALL.txt files (sad it's not closer to 500), it's the LICENSE.txt files that should be removed. -derek p.s. coincidentally, i was *just* working on the packaging script for the new release system and was re-adding this feature just before i got the original email. ;)
On 08 Oct 2006, at 10:39, Derek Wright wrote:
Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout?
the subject (and content of this thread) is talking about "LICENSE.txt". your find commands keep talking about INSTALL.txt, the install instructions.
Drats. My wrong. That's what you get when you get up too early (http://buytaert.net/sunday-morning-6-33am). Thanks for the explanation, Derek. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Hmm ... Seem Dries is not the only one suffering from the Sunday morning syndrome: http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=42125
Dries Buytaert wrote:
Hello world,
the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks. From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code downloaded directly from CVS.
This wouldn't be an issue if each file had a copyright notice and a reference to the license, which is the best solution. In the absence of such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory seems penny wise and pound foolish. (The whole issue of copyright ownership is another can of worms. I suggest checking the FAQ on why FSF requires that copyright ownership be transferred to them for their projects, at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright. Drupal should be doing the same.) Gary
On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks. From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code downloaded directly from CVS.
* There is a license file in the root of the contributions repository. (Yes, you can checkout modules on their own, or files on their own but that is not what 95% of the Drupal users do.) * Having to add a copyright notice to each file sucks in dynamically interpreted languages. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Dries Buytaert skrev:
On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks. From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code downloaded directly from CVS.
* There is a license file in the root of the contributions repository. (Yes, you can checkout modules on their own, or files on their own but that is not what 95% of the Drupal users do.)
Nevertheless, the regulation of GPL must be followed. Section 1 of GPL reads: 1. You may copy and distribute ... provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. Since a checkout in fact means that the repository owner distributes code under GPL, the repository owner is responsible for 1. conspicuously and appropriately publish on *each* copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty, 2. keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty, and 3. give any other recipients ... a copy of this License. Thus, I figure that Gary is right.
* Having to add a copyright notice to each file sucks in dynamically interpreted languages.
I agree, but that doesn't change facts. According to GPL, as I read it, the copyright notice *must* be there for GPL to apply. Section 0 of GPL reads: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. - - - Moreover, after the end of terms and conditions in the GPL, it is stated that "each file should have at least the 'copyright' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found." More on this can be found in the GPL FAQ. To summarize, I agree with Gary that each file must contain a copyright notice and a pointer to where the full notice as given at the end of GPL can be found. With this proviso, I think it is safe to remove LICENCE.txt from the modules. But, as Gary said, "in the absence of such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory seems penny wise and pound foolish." Regards, Thomas Webbredaktören <http://www.webbredaktoren.se/>
On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code downloaded directly from CVS. This wouldn't be an issue if each file had a copyright notice and a reference to the license, which is the best solution. In the absence of such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory seems penny wise and pound foolish. (The whole issue of copyright ownership is another can of worms. I suggest checking the FAQ on why FSF requires that copyright ownership be transferred to them for their projects, at http://www.gnu.org/ licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright. Drupal should be doing the same.)
Also, we had this discussion several times before. No need to discuss this over and over again. Check the archives. Thanks. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
participants (7)
-
Derek Wright -
Dries Buytaert -
Earl Miles -
Gary Feldman -
Khalid B -
Konstantin Käfer -
Thomas Barregren